“The recording industry won a key fight today against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Brainerd woman liable for damages for sharing copyrighted music online,” The Associated Press reports.
“Jurors ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay record companies $220,000 – the sum of $9,250 for each of 24 songs for which the companies sought damages,” AP reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Yeesh! The music cartel honchos are smiling today.
Apple TV on Thursday released the trailer for its new culinary docuseries “Awkwafina: The Unlikely Cook,” premiering globally on November 6th…
Apple TV’s “Brothers” is the result of a production that lost its original showrunner with most of the season already in the can…
Apple TV continues to bolster its streaming catalog by expanding beyond its usual lineup of original series and films. Subscribers can now…
Apple is restoring Messages Suggestions in the iOS 27.2 beta, bringing back a conversation shortcut that disappeared shortly before…
Apple is expected to introduce its first touchscreen MacBook Pro models in October or November. Apple will unveil long-rumored 14-inch and…
This makes me absolutely sick. No way someone should be forced to pay this.
Seriously, what makes the music companies think they are so damn important to be able to ruin people’s lives like this.
I wonder if the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibaway, a sovereign nation, has an extradition agreement with the United States. If not, that’s where she should head to and never leave.
Screw all of the music companies. That’s as disgusting as watching a gang of thugs beating down a young woman in the street to make a ‘public example’ out of them. Get real! People like them ruin free countries.
what the h*ll did she do?
Why is it that the record companies are so evil for doing this? The music IS their product. Your ARE paying for the right to USE not to OWN the material. Unfortunately, some many are failing to recognize that key point and this is the result.
Think of it on a smaller scale, if you did a homework assigment for school, your little friend stole it, turned it in and got an A and u got nothing but an F, u’ll probably go hunting for him. Same thing here.
That link requires a username and password to get to the article. Find a free article.
$220K is nothing to the RIAA. $220K is financial ruin to the mother. I think the penalty is quite disproportionate and disgusting.
“Think of it on a smaller scale, if you did a homework assigment for school, your little friend stole it, turned it in and got an A and u got nothing but an F, u’ll probably go hunting for him. Same thing here.”
Except in this case you got someone else to do it for you and gave them next to nothing in return, then it got stolen.
This makes me want to steal music again.
Just burn the top 40 everyday and hand it out on the street.
MUSIC IS DEAD
$9250.00 per song, and I bet the artist won’t see a penny of it. The jurors are just as much at fault for allowing such a high penalty. But then, they don’t pick the brightest people for jury duty…… Oh well!
MDN word: “boy” what a crock
The penalty is stiff, but the law is pretty clear and she (presumably knowingly) violated it. They’re entitled to damages, even if they are soulless companies.
Stealing from a company is no less wrong when that company is huge and wealthy.
‘Why is it that the record companies are so evil for doing this?’
‘$220K is nothing to the RIAA. $220K is financial ruin to the mother. I think the penalty is quite disproportionate and disgusting.’
The day the last bit of respect for the music companies died…
Cruel and unusual punishment.
“what makes the music companies think they are so damn important to be able to ruin people’s lives like this.”
What makes you so stupid to think you can steal from billion dollar businesses and not have them come after you for it?
here you go logan
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-verdict-is-in.html
That link requires a username and password to get to the article. Find a free article.
can some one , in a nut shell say what she did??
@hotinplaya
I am in a nut shell, but I’m not sure what she did.
I’d file her bankruptcy for her just to spite the RIAA!
Hey Jammie Thomas!
Set up a website to collect donations.
Don\’t worry, we will cost the RIAA 200 million dollars in lost revenue because of this stupid ruling.
To potential juries: Don\’t be intimidated by the State or Feds into voting guilty!
If i was her i would set up a donation fund. She could easily get 220,000 people to donate 1 dollar. including me.
Was do I put my buck to help her out?
The Dude abides.
Not too hard to find the free link: http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1464264.html
And by the way, 8R, it you’d like to sound credible, it’s “Ojibwe”.
And if I’d like to sound credible, I’d check my spelling too.
someone had a great idea on digg.com
“Also if these record labels are that afraid of file sharing, why not make the problem worst for them by going on the offensive. Just gather the artist from each label into one big catalog then distribute them freely on th PB for free. Further, burn copies and leave them in front of record stores. So if an artist wants to have their album released on a certain day, then just drop 100 burned cd’s in front of the store labeled “for free.” Also leave instructions on each cover how to make additional copies. I guarantee that a couple of these protest will at least get these board members thinking.”
I’ll be doing that I believe.
For those of you who are interested, Bob Moon reporting for American Public Media’s “Marketplace” did a wonderful three-part story on the recording industry’s efforts to prosecute illegal music downloaders. If you’d like to listen to his report, you can find it at the following:
(Part 1) http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/09/17/face_music_part1/
(Part 2) http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/09/18/face_the_music_2/
(Part 3) http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/09/19/face_music_3/
It was a civil case, so the music companies only had to prove that she was likely the person who made the copyrighted songs available. Still, the defense was severely flawed. Making the songs available is not the same thing as infringement–a point which was never discussed at trial.
The music cartels, as they currently exist, are morally bankrupt. Each of us can do the world a favor by boycotting them into extinction.
What the woman, Jammie Thomas, is accused of doing is sharing 24 “recordings” (it was never specified whether these were songs or albums) using the Kazza P2P network.
The RIAA showed screenshots of the songs being shared by “tereastarr@KaZaA” and then showed the jury where Ms. Thomas had used the same screenname elsewhere, where the IP address matched what Ms. Thomas’ cable company had assigned her, the MAC address matched her computer, and, a password-protected PC that only the defendant had access to made use of the tereastarr nickname across several services and e-mail accounts, and that the songs that Ms. Thomas was alleged to have shared were both on her computer’s hard drive and in her Kazaa shared folder.
This case differs from previous RIAA cases where they went after the downloaders. In this case they are going after the people who post the copyrighted material on P2P.
While reflexively I want to hate the RIAA in this case I believe they were right.
from the AP article, which is freely available at many papers: “We think we’re in for a long haul in terms of establishing that music has value, that music is property, and that property has to be respected,” said (RIAA president Cary) Sherman.”
Macromancer also raised this point and both are missing the reason people are pissed about the award. The majority of people know that widespread sharing of music is wrong. People know that music has value. I do not believe that any people are arguing that if she shard music, it was wrong. The size of the award is ridiculous, however.
The glee with which the RIAA greeted this absurd award simply serves to create ill will among consumers. Douchebags like Sherman are all like, “oh this is such a great deterent!”, but it really just infuriates consumers that believe that, even if the music industry is in the right, a life-crushing judgement again a mother of two is beyond overboard.
Did the RIAA decide the award? Of course not, but that does not matter with regard to public opinion on who is the bad guy here. Couldn’t they simply have made her delete the files and charged her the price of all the songs with a warning of criminal action if it happened again?
They are likely costing themselve more in the long run than they are recouping by using this tactic. If the RIAA members spent money on educating the public and trying a tactic that does not bankrupt struggling people, they might actually make some headway.
You nailed it Tommy Boy. Jammie Thomas was guilty and damages were due. The only question is the amount of those damages: were they fair. To my knowledge, the financial capabilities of either the complainant or defendant are immaterial to setting damages. I feel sorry for Jammie because ethics, values or civics are no longer taught in school, so she probably just figured she was being cool to share. She is none the less guilty in the court of law.
Was the jury made up entirely of republicans? This is unforgivable – to ruin some girls future based on doing something that probably all of her peers were doing. Imagine if these damages were retrieved from all cases! The RIAA would make more money than Haliburton!!!
Ok, Im not buying music for a long while because of this. This my official Boycott.
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Steve Jobs will put anyone who messes with music in jail! He’s crazy I tell ya, crazzzzy!
Umm… FakeSteveBallmer he’s just not funny.
Stealing from a company is no less wrong when that company is huge and wealthy.
Is it right when that huge wealthy company comes back and ruins you, for what amounts to petty theft?
The only winners here are the lawyers, who will collect nice fees.
Thank gawd for ITMS and MP3Sugar! In both cases, I pay for it. How they use the money is not my issue. Avoid PTP download services. Anyway, when Napster was around, I downloaded pretty much any conceivable music I wanted.
I wish I could directly mail money to the artist!
The RIAA certainly is making the public hate them!
This award is sick and twisted. $9K per song! What?! Here’s the response: take every Top 20 CD, burn it in multiple copies and give it away for free….
I would be very appreciative of a complete list of each song, artist, and label that Jammie has been convicted of stealing from.
Just for my own, personal, you know, … interest.
big business at work, as usual. Screw the little man, take the money, and say, “yeah, I’m right”. Well, right or wrong, yer all a bunch of money hungry cutthroat jerks. I’m all for boycotting all major music labels, as i have done with Universal after the iTunes fiasco. I bought my music and videos via iTunes, and they still said , “screw me” because of thier hassle with Apple. What a bunch of total
A%&holes;.
@ hotinplaya “That link requires a username and password to get to the article”
Try:
webreg@sucks.big
123456
Check out bugmenot.com for temporary logins
Let’s not buy any music, and let the musicians keep paying their dues. And let’s not put any money through the record companies–they might advance cash to musicians, who will make much better music if they’re starving. How many times have you seen success spoil a great group? And screw all the mom and pop music stores. They can stay home with the kids or go to soccer games instead of collecting the allowances of high school kids. And the high school kids can save gas money driving to the music stores by downloading the music. And if it’s free, they can use their allowance on stuff that goes with great music, like pizza and beer, not to mention weed. Just think how much better the world will be when we collapse the whole rotten chain of the music industry. Maybe our favorite groups could just stay close to home and do gigs at coffee shops and bars. Hey, I can even save buying expensive concert tickets that way–nobody will know who the goofballs are then, so they can’t rip us off! Let’s do it–starting tonight.
If you disagree with the verdict and the award, remember the makeup of the jury: in other articles on ARS Technica, they talk about the people who are on the jury, including the following folks:
1. two of them don’t own PCs and have never used the Internet
2. A third described himself as a “total computer illiterate.”
3. In addition to the English teacher, there’s a funeral director, a bartender, and a steelworker.
You’ll notice that NONE of these people work in Information Security. None of these people work in the tech industry. None of these people have a background in software, networking, or even computer hardware.
This is the problem with our justice system today. Justice is supposed to be meeted out by a jury of our peers, however, I guarantee that none of these is the peer of a Dr. Rivest or Bruce Schneier. How much further would justice be carried if justice were administered by experts in the field of concern; people who could not be swayed by hollow soundbites.
A MAC address and a screenname are circumstantial and do not directly tie a human being to anything – just a computer. All they’ve proven is that her COMPUTER was sharing files on a P2P network, NOT that SHE in particular initiated the sharing.
After the first RIAA suit our family quit purchasing music. It’s amazing how much money we now have for other activities. Music is not important to life. Years ago we used to spend over $100 a month on music, but for the previouse 5-8 years it’s been zero dollars. Heck we don’t even listen to those CD and albums. They’re just not important to us.
Jamie may have been in error with what she did. Her fine should have been what it cost the RIAA in sales, $2.00 a record perhaps so that comes to $48 total. She’ll never be able to repay that $222K, but her life is now ruined.
Never again will I purchase music for any reason. So says many of my family members, and friends as well.
Ok, I was going to go out and spend some money on some new dvd’s, i felt guilty about renting them over and over on netflix. Screw BUYING ANYTHING ELSE, EVER.
@ Ranger
Totally agree. What’s the point. I do not buy cds/dvds any more. When I see the product I become resentful and think of greedy RIAA. Hopefully Jamie can file bankruptcy. They certainly ruined her life over 24 tracks. Isn’t the punishment a bit excessive? Heck. Would have been easier if she had killed someone. Do her time and become free again. Shees. Amazing. You can get away with murder rather easily. But you dare touch a pocket book and it is the end of the world. Worse, look at what our polititians get away with! As usually, the system comes down hard on the small person.
What would be the penalty if someone robbed a real cd music store and started passing around the copies of the cds for free to hundreds of people?
Eric – what occupation the jurors had shouldn’t matter. You don’t have to be a professional thief to convict a pro thief, etc…
I’ve always supported buying music, but this is a disgrace. Even if the snakes won the case, the amount is beyond insane. I wonder how much of it was to cover a portion of the lawyers fees?
And gspank – taking a break from the hookah to make a post?
This is bullshit.
“Is it right when that huge wealthy company comes back and ruins you, for what amounts to petty theft?”
Yes. Do the crime, do the time.
At this point, I’m grasping at a Fargo comment, but I just can’t pull it out.
“Why is it that the record companies are so evil for doing this? The music IS their product. Your ARE paying for the right to USE not to OWN the material. Unfortunately, some many are failing to recognize that key point and this is the result. “
another key point is that she says she doesn’t use kaaza, and they failed to prove she did, and the jury said that even if it isn’t her doing the sharing, it is just her machine and has been zombied, she is still guilty.
so YOU seem to be missing a key point.
if you computer is hacked and used to share music, should YOU pay for it?
in your case i say yes, but generally that doesn’t seem fair……
Mmm..I love my itunes.
“Stealing from a company is no less wrong when that company is huge and wealthy”
Bull!
Taking from companies is merely repossession of stolen goods. Companies should have zero rights and zero voice. While individuals should have all the rights.
Corporations are legalized thieves.
Guilty as charge it seems. But 220K for 24 songs. If each song costs $1 each, then the jury are assuming the song was downloaded ~10,000 times. Is that reasonable or likely? Have they proven that?
To me 10K seems reasonable. A lot of dough and certainly sends a message. But literally bankrupting someone to prove a point is dumb. Almost as dumb as the 250K and five years imprisonment for ripping a DVD!
Geek Squad actually fixed someone’s computer!
Spock – it would be no where near as severe you dunce.
I smell an appeal…
Gspank:”his is unforgivable – to ruin some girls future based on doing something that probably all of her peers were doing.”
So if I am a Cripp or Blood and all my peers are committing murder or rape-it’s ok for me to do it to?
I mean all my peers are doing it, that makes it right then-right?
Stealing is wrong-period. It is not a valid legal or moral defense to state a wrong action is right because everyone else is doing it.
The award that the jury gave seems way to much. $100 dollars a song seems much more reasonable.
I hope they come after me. I think there are some pieces that I’ve probably enjoyed too much …and maybe, my heart has soared like the eagle ..maybe I stole that line. Maybe, I’ve had a couple of moments of ecstacy ..maybe some of the music I have has gotten into the deepest folds of my Godhead. ok, I made that one up ..but maybe I’ve become one with a couple of pieces. If I have then maybe I’ve gone too far …maybe I owe a little more to the record companies for having gotten too close to something they own. If I have then they have the right to take something of me. They can have my cheeky ass ..and the brownouts I sometimes suffer. ok, I made that one up ..but they can have my darkest thoughts ..the ones that get bigger and darker as your inner Godhead gets hold of them ..ok, nevermind, I take that back. Maybe, I’ll give them all the ridiculous shit I’ve made up. No, really, they’ve earned it. God knows they’ve earned it ..and I’ve got a lot of it. I’ve gotten too close to something they own …something I can never really have ..music from the record companys. They say I can never own anything I buy from them ..never ..but I want them to have my shit in return for letting me get too close. I’ll never really be able to repay them ..but I want them to have all of my crapp.
At first I thought this was excessive, but the more I’ve thought about it, the more appropriate it seems. The issue in a civil case is the amount that the plaintiff was damaged, and given the number of people that probably downloaded these songs, the amount could be right.
Unless copyright owners can recover full damages, there’s no practical way to enforce intellectual property. Just consider the legal fees. Besides, only an award this big has a chance of frightening those who do this. Since the owners can’t afford to go after every offender, their only hope is deterrence through fear of large awards. Those who don’t like it should take up a collection!
Sure RIAA is just a bunch of blood-sucking lawyers, but it’s idiots who steal that make it lucrative to be a lawyer…
She deseved what she got for giving away free music…
Not to forget… with the trend going against DRM, the music copyright owners will justget more aggressive after music theives, and it is a LOT more lucative to go after those who share than those who download.
Oh, and what kind of fucking idiot is named after night clothes?
Seriously, what makes the music companies think they are so damn important to be able to ruin people’s lives like this.
While I disagree with many of RIAA’s policies, I do not disagree with this.
What makes me sick is the multitude of socialists on this board that think a firm should not be compensated for product they own.
\When you buy a song, you are buying the right to LISTEN to it forever. You do not own the copyright, or the song itself. YOU CAN NOT GIVE AWAY THAT WHICH IS NOT YOURS.
Get real and get a life.
Its a good thing they won one finally… their lawyers were starting to wonder if they would EVAR get paid.
The outcome I would have liked to see was the defendant getting declared guilty and the RIAA getting a token award of $1.00, to teach them the lesson that they are shooting their own feet with these lawsuits.
It’s been years since I spent hours at Wal-mart or BestBuy or perusing the BMG or Columbia “Record” Club catalogs. I love music from France and French music from Quebec, but I haven’t bought any of that, either.
The RIAA has left a very sour taste in my mouth.
** I’d love an edit button, MDN**
That was, the CD section at Wal-mart and BestBuy
Lets hear it for Radiohead. They Are well aware they don’t need a record company, and when I have ten dollars I will glady go over to there band site and purchase their new album. The Price is whatever you want BTW.
I will gladly pay ten dollars for an album when the artists gets $10.00 of it
Word “went” as in they went the right way.
I love it. The bitch got what she deserved!
$9250.00 per song! I thought they were only $.99. They should have charged her $23.76.
@Lovin’ it!
Bend over, bitch, you’re next.
Years and years after Napster and we are still debating this?
I am so sick of hearing about the “Evil” music companies.
I work in the entertainment indutry and last I checked, I didn’t have horns.
When you rage against the machine, think about the parts.
Music labels have laid so many people off bc of lost revenue.
Why? Because people don’t want to pay for it.
Look at how many of you on this board are already saying you won’t pay for it to protest what happened to this poor woman.
So your payback is to screw the artists too?
Do any of you have a grasp of how things work?
Your money from an album goes to marketing, producers, advertising, production, and the artists etc.
that also includes poor moms who answer phones at these companies.
So you not paying them cuts the companies profits.
So what do they do?
They lay the poor mom off.
It’s pretty simple guys.
It isn’t always going to rich souless bastards. Not that I’m naive and think everyone is a saint in the record business but let’s all think a little more deeply about all of this.
What were the 24 particular songs/artists I wonder? I’m sharing almost 36000 songs if anyone’s interested. If the record companies think i have a spare 333,000,000 (US dollars mind you) to pay a fine they’re dreaming.
“The award that the jury gave seems way to much. $100 dollars a song seems much more reasonable.”
$9250.00 per song! I thought they were only $.99.
Read the case, they actually claim she downloaded 1702 songs but only focused on proving 24. So she’s at a much more reasonable $147/song, not much over what you think is fair.
“They should have charged her $23.76.”
Sure, when you steal stuff the only penalty should be to charge you what you would have paid if you didn’t steal it. That’ll really stop people stealing.
Actually $129/song, even closer…
“I’m sharing almost 36000 songs if anyone’s interested”
We’re interested.
I would refuse to pay this on principle.
The principle that I don’t have $220k
“Taking from companies is merely repossession of stolen goods.”
Think about whatever you do for a job.
Now think what happens if people just steal that output, goods, services, songs, whatever it is and because of that, your company doesn’t pay you.
That’d be OK?
If you think stealing things is your right, you should be OK with people stealing from you too.
This judgment is great to see. Theft is theft and I am tired of hearing people justify themselves stealing music from the artists and the music industry. A huge judgment like this is a wakeup call to those who steal and/or offer music illegally online.
Gee Ford makes a lot of money selling cars every year. Maybe I should go to a Ford dealership and steal a car from the lot. They make plenty of money per year so I am completely justified stealing from them.
Well guys,
Why is it that the record companies are GREEDY for not wanting people to steal their music?
I don’t get it!
@ Iskra
“I am so sick of hearing about the “Evil” music companies.
I work in the entertainment indutry and last I checked, I didn’t have horns.”
I have a question for you, Iskra:
When I create new IP…
the law only gives me either 14 years (invention patent) or 20 years (utility patent) worth of protection.
But when you create new IP…
…the law gives you 120 years (corporate authorship) or {Life + 70} years (individual copyright).
Yeah, you get roughly TEN TIMES more protection.
The reason why both carry monopoly protection periods is to foster innovation and to provide a period of assured returns if one takes the risk of producing the product.
In my industry, that still involves big machines that bend metal that costs millions of dollars each…a production line today costs significantly more than it did 25 years ago.
In your industry, your product is digitized and distributed virtually for free. Even for when you’re still making physical CDs, your material costs and production costs have plummited, yet your retail prices haven’t been cut.
“When you rage against the machine, think about the parts.”
Yes, absolutely. And what I rage against is the fact that copyrights receive nearly a full ORDER OF MAGNITUDE increase in duration of protection over Patents, which are merely another form of Intellectual Property.
Clearly, your industry’s lawyers know how to bribe politicians better than my industry’s lawyers.
“Music labels have laid so many people off bc of lost revenue.
Why? Because people don’t want to pay for it.”
Incorrect: it is because people no longer see the product that you’re selling as a good VALUE at the price point you’re asking for it. And because you have a 100 year monopoly, your industry sees no reason to cut prices … or make themselves more competive, because they’re protected by this monopoly.
“Look at how many of you on this board are already saying you won’t pay for it to protest what happened to this poor woman.”
Sorry, but I’ve been boycotting all RIAA-endorsed content for all of this Century … this woman has nothing to do with it.
“So your payback is to screw the artists too?”
I didn’t force the Artists to sell their IP to the Labels. They chose to do this themselves.
“So you not paying them cuts the companies profits.
So what do they do?”
Our Country’s IP system is totally messed up and out of balance with the times. Personally, I’m of the opinion that if we were to slash Copyright protections by 75%, it would be a good start.
The current labels are big, fat and inefficient. Stripping them of 75% of their IP and giving it to the public domain would create new opportunities for innovation, and those companies that can adapt will do so and be successful. Those that are still entrenched in the old ways will hopefully go bankrupt quickly, so as to minimize the harm to their “little people”.
I will not endorse a broken system. And since you work there, you know exactly what I mean. Instead of trying to protect your own little job, perhaps you should go work in a different industry.
-hh
Two Points of note from the LA Times article on this:
1) Most of the time these suits are settled for less than $5000.
2) Also SHE was the first to bring the case to court. She was unwilling to settle.
She gambled and tried to play with the big boys and lost.
Yes, I feel sorry for her since her situation is not unique.
Yes, I feel bad she has to pay lots of money.
However, she did not need to fight the case in court.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-music5oct05,0,3362985.story?coll=la-home-center
I understand they wanna prove a point, but don’t they think that sum is a little over the top?? I mean isn’t $220,000 a little much for the average 30 year old individual to come up with… who wants to bet they’ll never see all, if any, of that money. I forecast a new bankruptcy being filed
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
My sympathies to this woman. Personally I think the penalty for her crime is extreme. Although what she did is against the law.
However this “War on sharing music” is about as fruitless as the “war on drugs”.
You will see examples made of a few people – ruining their lives for something much less serious than say – killing someone. But overall it will never go away.
As soon as people could make copies of music they have been sharing it with friends – and now people they don’t know. It’s not a new phenomenon.
It isn’t people that will change – the law needs to change.
As a visual artist I’d love to get paid every time someone looked at my work or when someone buys my work from a previous buyer – but it isn’t going to happen.
The only way I could see legal action is if someone used my art for commercial use and didn’t pay me. That is how it should be for the music biz as well.
@Eric
You’ll notice that NONE of these people work in Information Security. None of these people work in the tech industry. None of these people have a background in software, networking, or even computer hardware.
This is the problem with our justice system today. Justice is supposed to be meeted out by a jury of our peers, however, I guarantee that none of these is the peer of a Dr. Rivest or Bruce Schneier.
It doesn’t matter what their jobs are. The “jury of one’s peers” refers to other citizens, not necessarily those equal to you in every way. If that were the case, the jury would all be the same race as the defendant in the case. They would be employed in the same, or a very similar, profession with equivalent education, income, and family makeup. That would be ridiculous.
From legalzoom.com:
The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The phrase “jury of one’s peers” is not included in the Amendment, however, the courts interpret peer to mean equal, i.e., the jury pool must include a cross section of the population of the community in terms of gender, race, and national origin. The jury selection process must not exclude or intentionally narrow any particular group of people.
Here is the 6th amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
All this talk of deliberately sharing copies of music to “pay back” the RIAA is ridiculous. All that’s going to do is make the RIAA more determined to catch people, and the artists will be the ones who suffer. Treat the PROBLEM people, not the SYMPTOMS.
If you don’t like paying big greedy labels then buy music from sites where artists are selling their music directly to the public. There are plenty of them, do some research.
You are correct in everything you said except one: this was not a change in strategy for the RIAA — they’ve only ever sued uploaders. The reason that it looked like they were suing downloaders is because Kazaa turned on sharing for your download folder by default so anyone who downloaded music was automatically also sharing it without their knowledge. I don’t think that any court anywhere has ever held that downloading constitutes infringement. All the case law has to do with sharing, i.e., uploading. That’s where Kazaa made its users innocent victims of the RIAA, because most of them were too computer illiterate to even know what the settings were or how to change them.
Also you didn’t note that Thomas may be liable for perjury charges because she lied in a number of sworn statements.
And as to why $9K+ per song: that’s what happens if you go to trial. It is just like where you get a traffic ticket: if you pay the fine, there is one fee but if you go to court and lose, the fee is much higher. I had a friend who contested a $300 traffic ticket, lost and got 3 days in jail and a $1,500 fine!
Finally, if this case was an indictment of a flawed jury system, how come it was the record companies that wanted a bench trial (with just a judge) and it was Thomas who insisted on a jury? She made a public statement at one point saying that whether she did it or not, no jury would ever find her liable. WRONG!
If you look at the record, the jury found that Jammie had been willful (i.e., she didn’t do it by accident) and sent a note to the judge asking what the minimum penalty was (it was $750 per song). The maximum was $150,000 per song. So $9,167 per song is more than half way in her favor. The number is odd given that 24 doesn’t go into it evenly, so either the jury just picked what they thought was a reasonable number or they did something like assessing $7,500 per song (10 times the minimum but 1/20th of the maximum) and then tacked on $40,000 for spite.
But lets not fool ourselves. Even though it wasn’t a party, all of these tracks that Jammie gave away could have been bought from our beloved Apple, so they lost out too because of her actions, not just the RIAA.
I strongly suspect that the posters here who are in support of the decision are RIAA trolls. Nobody in their right mind could support the damage award. If I had been on the jury, I would have voted “Not Guilty” by reason of jury nullification. Jurors are the last defense against bad laws. Of course, you never mention those two words, as courts go berserk, because they think they are the last word, but the Supreme Court has upheld it. Think O. J., that’s how he was acquitted.
The best approach I know of is to play the system, like the RIAA does. Check out CDs from your library and RIP them. Let’s see the RIAA take on the American Library Association.
Buy used CDs from record stores and pawn shops, RIP them and sell them back. That gets your costs down to less than $5 each, and the RIAA doesn’t get a penny.
Borrow CDs from friends and RIP them, and if there’s some new music you just gotta have, there’s always the ITMS. Don’t ever buy new albums at their outrageous prices!
You know if she had just got her music from itunes this wouldn’t have happened.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
Don’t ever buy new albums at their outrageous prices!
I don’t understand how people can keep justifying the theft of music. It doesn’t matter how much money someone has or how much they charge for their product. Stealing is stealing.
Sharing a CD with a friend or family member is one thing, but when you upload songs to a sharing service, that is different.
I agree that the fines were too high, but if they don’t make them severe, people will continue to violate the law.
Using the logic I am hearing, it would be acceptable for me to break in to a rich person’s house and steal their belongings. After all, they have too much money anyway. That is ridiculous.
“Taking from companies is merely repossession of stolen goods. Companies should have zero rights and zero voice.”
All right, go live someplace where that’s the law in force, like Venezuela, and let us know how it goes. Just don’t whine about the standard of living or the goods that aren’t available to you because business doesn’t have any protections in place that allow it to make money on selling the stuff you want.
“Just don’t whine about the standard of living or the goods that aren’t available “
The problem with the dumbass who posted the original comment will be surprised when companies decide to not keep producing things for them to steal.
“When I create new IP…
the law only gives me either 14 years (invention patent) or 20 years (utility patent) worth of protection.
But when you create new IP…
…the law gives you 120 years (corporate authorship) or {Life + 70} years (individual copyright).”
There is no such thing as an “invention patent.” The patents granted for inventions are utility patents. And the copyright term for corporate authorship is 95 years, not 120 years.
“And what I rage against is the fact that copyrights receive nearly a full ORDER OF MAGNITUDE increase in duration of protection over Patents, which are merely another form of Intellectual Property”
But what you don’t mention is that the protection granted by patent is so much greater than that given to copyrights. Patents protect against reverse engineering, copyrights don’t. Patents protect against reverse engineering, copyrights don’t. Copyrights are subject to fair use, patents aren’t. There are more points, but basically a valid patent completely locks the invention down while all copyright gives is protection against copying.
I see that I mentioned reverse engineering twice. The second time I meant to say “independent creation” not “reverse engineering.” I wish one could edit these posts. Also, I’d like to ask if copyright were so much better than patent, why is it that all the tech companies, most particularly Apple, have chosen to patent their IP that is already protected by copyright?
‘Years and years after Napster and we are still debating this?
I am so sick of hearing about the “Evil” music companies.
I work in the entertainment indutry and last I checked, I didn’t have horns.
When you rage against the machine, think about the parts.
Music labels have laid so many people off bc of lost revenue.
Why? Because people don’t want to pay for it.
Look at how many of you on this board are already saying you won’t pay for it to protest what happened to this poor woman.
So your payback is to screw the artists too?
Do any of you have a grasp of how things work?
Your money from an album goes to marketing, producers, advertising, production, and the artists etc.
that also includes poor moms who answer phones at these companies.
So you not paying them cuts the companies profits.
So what do they do?
They lay the poor mom off.
It’s pretty simple guys.
It isn’t always going to rich souless bastards. Not that I’m naive and think everyone is a saint in the record business but let’s all think a little more deeply about all of this.’
Yes, that’s all true to a point, but there is no way around the fact that most record contracts are tantamount to slavery. The record companies ruin their ARTISTS all the time with loans leveraged against their record sales, etc. Producers, promoters and the like get paid regardless-it’s the artists that bear the brunt of the burden for all of this. I don’t condone stealing either, but your argument is ridiculous. I am guessing that you would be one of the aforementioned tech people and you’re feeling the pinch, if indeed you do what you say you do at all (I find it very hard to believe that anyone with actual experience in this realm would post what you have unless they were brain dead). The major label model of music distribution and sales has been problematic for a long, long time; it’s just finally starting to collapse. It doesn’t mean the end of music, though it might mean the end for someone like you. As we are learning, your role in all of this really is unnecessary. Good luck with your new career.
“There is no such thing as an “invention patent.” The patents granted for inventions are utility patents. And the copyright term for corporate authorship is 95 years, not 120 years.”
–nice quibble over semantics without denying the truth that a copyright holder receives inordinately long protection. There’s no reason a copyright should last longer than 20 years. Imagine how stagnant music would have been had copyright laws been in place to “protect” Bach, Brahms and Beethoven, or Stephen Foster, for that matter.
“But what you don’t mention is that the protection granted by patent is so much greater than that given to copyrights. Patents protect against reverse engineering, copyrights don’t. Patents protect against reverse engineering, copyrights don’t. Copyrights are subject to fair use, patents aren’t. There are more points, but basically a valid patent completely locks the invention down while all copyright gives is protection against copying.”
–“Patently” false assertions. Anyone may use and reproduce a patent, providing he doesn’t do so for profit or personal gain. In fact, that’s why a patent is required to disclose the preferred mode of operation. That is codified into law and has not changed. Not so for copyrights. Let’s look at online tablature sites, for example. In this case, the tabs are generated through independent ear analysis of the recordings, not for sale, no profits involved, and the industry still prohibits distribution of even this type of independent work. This is violation of free speech, more than it is copyright protection, but it’s “the law.”
If you think that the system is fair, compare the compensation history of Jonas Salk, who invented the polio vaccine, to that of Madonna, who wrote the tremendously important piece “Material Girl”.
@newser
“There’s no reason a copyright should last longer than 20 years.” There’s a very good reason: a patent owner may continue to use, manufacture and profit from an invention even after the patent has expired. All they lose is their monopoly and now they have to compete against potential competitors. With copyright, no one is required to pay for anything in the public domain. If you are an author, your publisher will stop paying you even if your book is still selling. If you’re talking about any other work, the same applies. It isn’t just that you have to compete agianst other users, but that your work now essentially becomes free to the entire world.
“Anyone may use and reproduce a patent, providing he doesn’t do so for profit or personal gain. In fact, that’s why a patent is required to disclose the preferred mode of operation. That is codified into law and has not changed. Not so for copyrights. Let’s look at online tablature sites, for example. In this case, the tabs are generated through independent ear analysis of the recordings, not for sale, no profits involved, and the industry still prohibits distribution of even this type of independent work. This is violation of free speech, more than it is copyright protection, but it’s “the law.” “
This is somewhat true, but not relevant. Of course you can use and reproduce a patent, that’s the whole point of patents. This is no different from saying that you can buy sheet music and play it privately or make a recipe in a copyrighted book. That’s not the point. Patent essentially locks down an invention during the period of the patent, while copyright only prevents copying, distributing and performing the work, and includes a raft of fair use loopholes. As I said, and you never refuted, that is why all the computer companies are choosing to patent rather than or in addition to copyrighting their software.
“If you think that the system is fair, compare the compensation history of Jonas Salk, who invented the polio vaccine, to that of Madonna, who wrote the tremendously important piece “Material Girl” “
An unfair comparison, to be sure, if only because of the disparity in time. Other than Elvis, no performer active when Salk invented the polio vaccine made anything remotely what Madonna has made. Also, the vast bulk of the money that Madonna has made comes from live performances, not anything to do with copyright. Moreover, did Salk own the patent on his invention? If not, then your point is moot. Why not look instead at the compensation with the bigest worldwide patent owners, GE, Ford, IBM, Intel, Apple with those of the biggest copyright companies you can find, i.e., Vivendi, NewsCorp, TimeWarner. I think you’ll find that the disparity is huge.